Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New American Self-Propelled Artillery
EW3    4/25/2005 1:53:44 AM
I'm not an armor guy, so I have no idea, but it seems that to take some of the R&D from one project and use it on another good management. Opinions. --------------------------------------------------------- April 24, 2005: The new American self-propelled artillery, the 155mm NLOS-C, has been undergoing tests for the last 18 months, and has fired a thousand rounds so far. The system was cobbled together in six months, after the new Crusader SP artillery system was cancelled. The current self-propelled system, the M-109, is a fifty year old design. Although the M-109 has been updated, the NLOS-C incorporates many new technologies. This includes an auto-loader (from the Crusader) and a more modern 155mm gun (the M-777, a towed, British designed system) and an APC chassis with a hybrid-electric engine (to reduce fuel consumption.) This all weighs 23 tons, about the same as the M-109. But the NLOS only has a two man crew, compared to five in the M-109. The final version of the NLOS-C is supposed to have a lighter, composite material that will bring the weight down to under 20 tons. There is some doubt if that will happen, but NLOS-C is part of the army’s FCS (Future Combat System) family of combat vehicles, and being under twenty tons is part of that. But in the meantime, a new self-propelled artillery weapon is needed, and NLOS-C could fill the bill if they would just finish the development and get it into production. Congress demanded that this happen by 2008. But Congress has made other demands about FCS and NLOS-C which conflict with this date. It all may be moot, as the new Excalibur GPS guided shell, entering service next year, could change everything. If Excalibur works in combat, the way it has in testing, it could radically change the way artillery operates. Excalibur would mean 80-90 percent less ammo would be fired, meaning less wear and tear on existing M-109s, and a few more years for the army to figure out what the M-109 replacement will be.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
flamingknives       12/16/2007 2:47:54 PM
dwightlooi:

PzH2000 - 55t
AS90 - 42t
German Artillery Gun Module (AGM) - 27t
Giat Caesar - 18.5t

More developmental concepts:
LIMAWS(G) - 13t.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre       12/17/2007 1:53:14 PM

(1) I think it is moot to compare the NLOS-C with more traditional SPAs like the German PzH2000 or the British AS90. The NLOS-C is NOT a high performance SPA designed with the intent to shoot further than the enemy's batteries and delivery a greater rate of fire than the opponent. It will do none of that and it is not supposed to.

(2) The "new" US Army tubed artillery doctrine is that guns do not have to be particularly long ranged and they do not have to fire very quickly. That is not their value. If it is firepower or range that is needed, there are better solutions with greater potential than a shell pushed out of a tube by an explosive charge! Rocket systems or aerial bombardment are better choices for weight of fire and/or range.

(3) The "new" believe is that SPAs are to be small, light and preferably C-130 transportable. They have to out range line of sight weaponry sufficiently to remain behind the heavy armor action groups but do not have to out range enemy artillery. They need to be responsive and precise more than they need to be fast firing. Their mission is to support the armored spearhead or urban infantry action from 5~15km away delivery precise and near immediate fire on enemy LOS combat elements in plain view of friendly tanks or infantry when requested. Their mission is NOT to pull counter battery duty against enemy long range tube or rocket artillery. The MLRS, HIMARS and CAS cover will do those things.

(sigh)
...and how much does it cost to have that longer range???
CAS and MLRS are not always available (dream all you want, in reality, they often aren't around), and I can tell you from experience that (at least until we develop a "shoot on the move" capability in a howitzer) keeping up with armored units and being able to range in on the targets that they need serviced is a real challenge - you need every bit of range that you can get.
 
So we give up on long range... why???  To save a little weight?  (it doesn't matter, we have already busted that requirement)  So that it can fit on a C-130??
 
If we have the longer range and never run into a situation where we need it, then great.  Things change in combat, and in the way wars are fought, having some flexibility is a good thing.

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       12/17/2007 5:51:27 PM


(sigh)
...and how much does it cost to have that longer range???

CAS and MLRS are not always available (dream all you want, in reality, they often aren't around), and I can tell you from experience that (at least until we develop a "shoot on the move" capability in a howitzer) keeping up with armored units and being able to range in on the targets that they need serviced is a real challenge - you need every bit of range that you can get.

 So we give up on long range... why???  To save a little weight?  (it doesn't matter, we have already busted that requirement)  So that it can fit on a C-130??

 If we have the longer range and never run into a situation where we need it, then great.  Things change in combat, and in the way wars are fought, having some flexibility is a good thing.


How about instead, "How much does it cost, and without that longer range?"
--------------------
 
Posted 12/10/07 17:27
Print this story
U.S. Army to Buy 18 NLOS Cannons Separately From FCS

http://www.defensenews.com/images/adtab_h.gif" width=75>
http://gcirm.mconetwork.gcion.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif" width=2 border=0>http://gcirm.mconetwork.gcion.com/RealMedia/.ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.defensenews.com/story.php/634687344/300x250_1/default/empty.gif/63666666396638333437363666383030?_RM_EMPTY_" width=0>
The U.S. Army will buy its first 18 Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannons for $505.2 million (in 2003 dollars) in a separate effort from the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program that developed the 27-ton hybrid electric armored vehicles.
The move, which was directed by Defense Acquisition Undersecretary John Young in a Dec. 1 memo, is intended to free money for other FCS acquisitions and to meet a congressional requirement to deploy the NLOS weapon by 2010.
?It approves a separate acquisition strategy for the cannon, which is still managed out of the FCS office,? FCS spokesman Paul Meheny said.
Defense News obtained a copy of the memo.
The DoD Appropriations Acts of 2005, 2006 and 2007 mandate that the NLOS-C be deployed by 2010.
The first practical effect of the move will come in 2009, when the first large-scale production decisions are made for FCS technologies.
?NLOS-C SpI program decisions do not constitute production decisions for FCS or for any part of the FCS program,? Young?s memo said.